Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Does Atheism Promote Kindness?

In doing a little research for a post that I am
working on, I came across a blog post by Austin Cline of the Atheism and
Agnosticism page of About.com. The page, which was entitled, “Pleasures of Atheism: Why Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics Find Joy in a Godless Existence,”
lists seven reasons for believing that
Atheism brings more pleasure than theism (and more particularly, conservative
faith in Christianity). One of the reasons he states is that an Atheist is free
to be kinder. Here’s what Cline wrote:

A common misconception that many theists labor
under is the belief that the only kind people are those who follow a particular
god or religion. To this, any atheist or freethinker with common sense will no
doubt reply ‘rubbish.’ British philosopher Bertrand Russell, a well-known
secularist himself, made the following statement in his essay ‘The Faith of a
Rationalist:’ “Men tend to have the beliefs that suit their passions. Cruel men
believe in a cruel god and use their belief to excuse cruelty. Only kindly men
believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case.” In other words,
one doesn’t have to believe in a god to be a kind person. Many atrocities in
past history have clearly demonstrated that religion and kindness were worlds
apart.

Cruel People Choose a Cruel Religion?

If I understand this argument (which isn’t really
so much an argument as an assertion), Cline believes that non-belief in God allows
the Atheist to be kind. Yet, his paragraph on kindness does not really support
this idea. He apparently agrees with Bertrand Russell’s statement (which I believe to be
nonsense) that, “Men tend to have the beliefs that suit their passions. Cruel
men believe in a cruel god and use their belief to excuse cruelty. Only kindly
men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case.”

This is so obviously rubbish (to use his own word) I am surprised that Cline (and more importantly, Russell) actually contends
that it’s true. One need spend only a moment perusing the Internet or any
Christian bookstore to find a plethora of testimonies by or about individuals
who were once unquestionably cruel individuals who, upon encountering Jesus,
totally changed their ways. Just one example can be found here. It’s the story of a convicted murderer who
later converted to Christianity in prison. He was definitely a cruel man.
According to his own statement,

We began to persuade prisoners to [the Brown
Power movement] and when Christians would try to witness to me I would threaten
them or beat them up. I remember beating up one Christian and banging his head
against the prison cell bars until blood was flowing from his head and he was
hollering for the guards to rescue him simply for speaking to me about Christ.

Obviously, Christianity changes people – it has
turned (and will continue to turn) cruel people into kindly people.

Why would being Atheistic Lead People to be Kind?

Still, even if Russell’s statement were true, it
doesn’t mean that kindness is part of the freedom of atheism. After all if
Russell is accurate, the cruel man will be cruel and the kindly man will be
kindly regardless of his belief or non-belief in God. So, exactly what
motivates the Atheist to be kind? It cannot be his Atheism because nothing in
Atheism promotes kindness. Starting with its evolutionary base, Atheism
necessarily accepts the notion of survival of the fittest. Does that attitude better
promote kindness or a winner-take-all mentality?

Having said that, I understand how Atheism allows for
kindness if the religion in vogue is a cruel religion. The Atheist, not being
beholden to the god being preached by that cruel religion, can certainly reject
the cruelty and be kind. But that is not unique to Atheism. A Christian, who is
taught directly that they are to love their neighbors and love their enemies
and that God is love, is also free to reject the cruelty of the cruel god of
the cruel religion. In fact, unlike the Atheist, kindness, gentleness and
humility are all part and parcel of being a Christian since these are all gifts
of the Spirit that come as the Christian grows in his faith. The Atheist,
however, is not under any compulsion to be kind. Just as the Atheist can
certainly reject the cruelty of the cruel religion and be kind, so too can an
Atheist, not being beholden to the God being preached by the kind religion, can
certainly reject the kindness and be cruel. Each of these choices are equally
valid moves in the Atheistic universe. No moral judgments are involved.

So, it is certainly true that a Atheist can be
kind, and it is equally true that Atheism allows people the freedom to be kind.
But that is not the important question. The important question to ask is
whether Atheism promotes kindness over cruelty. I see nothing in Atheistic philosophy
that requires or even promotes the Atheist to be kind. (Please don’t tell me
about the Humanist Manifesto – Atheists are obviously free to reject that as
well.) Meanwhile, Christians are told to be kind and are told that as they
advance in God’s kingdom, kindness is one of the fruits of the Spirit that
follows from following Jesus. So, if you want to be kind, want a belief system
that teaches kindness, and want the tools to become kind, Christianity is
clearly the path to follow.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.